What Circular polarizer is on your R1 ?

tyampel said:

You are correct in saying that a circular polarized is better than a
linear on for P&S digital cameras.

But DSLR do need the circular ones because of the way the autofocus
works in them.
While the P&S cameras use contrast detection for focusing, DSLRs use
phase shift detection technology that is indeed affected by linear
polarizers.

For the R1 a good (coated) linear will do just fine.

--
Tod Yampel

Duck Club member

Click to expand...

Uh, wrong. I use a linear polarizer on my E1, which is a DSLR, and have no focusing or exposure problems.

Phase shift detection was done long ago with film cameras when there was no digital sensor that had the capability to detect edges.

I would suggest you try a linear polarizer on your DSLR camera before deciding that it does not work.

--
RayT

B Gavin said:

When a company like Sony chooses to streamline and simplify its
inventory by only carrying circular polarizers - I find it hard to
believe that the difference of an additional $10 or $15 is really
going to line anyones pockets. This same company (Sony) also
manufactures and markets video cameras for $37,000USD.

Click to expand...

When a company standardizes on the more expensive product knowing full well that the cheaper solution is just as workable, then someone is making money, gouging I would say. Comparing a 37K video camera to a 0.075K filter is not realistic. I doubt that Sony sells as many of the expensive video cameras as they do filters.

--
RayT

It works fine.

My two biggest gripes with it are:

a) no outer threads – (would be nice if I could screw the close-up lens onto it).

b) can't be adjusted with the lens hood on – not really the fault of the filter, just not very bright Sony design.

I also have to humbly disagree with Mr. BGavin. He states, "The only reasons I prefer B+ H is because they are coated...", which implies that the Sony one is not. Mine is, and on both sides too.

Cheers,
Jerry

Florindo Gallicchio said:

I didn't use HDR software to process these shots, but I did use some
post processing "trickery" to get the final results.

Click to expand...

I believe you may have misinterpreted my post. I was in fact complimenting your photographs just using the filter. They look as good as some I've seen post processed using HDR which is why I made the comment. With results this great, who needs HDR, just use a polarizer instead. Excellent work, keep going.....

I didn't take offense at your response. I was actually saying that while my pictures do look somewhat like HDR, I was able to get that look without using HDR, but rather with blending.

Thanks for the compliments! I'm glad I was able to get those results without using HDR. Oftentimes I see HDR as too "fake" looking, so getting close to the HDR look is something I try to do.

--
Florindo
http://www.bellacosaphotography.com

Had long before Sony was in my hands (used for Nikon).
Works excellent, no vignetting, and I can use lens cap on it...
However:
1) at 24 mm is always the danger of big differences in the sky colour..
And
2) sometimes the total effect is too much for the blue sky. Turn back a bit...
Joe
http://joecan.smugmug.com/
If you are always telling the truth, you don't have to remember what you said.

Florindo Gallicchio said:

I didn't use HDR software to process these shots, but I did use some
post processing "trickery" to get the final results. I did do a
little blending, but not much. I shoot everything RAW, and for some
I process the RAW shot twice - once for highlights, once for shadows,
and then blend in PS.

Click to expand...

Florindo, what blending mode trickery did you do?

Just wanna know how people see the difference between the polarized and non-polarized scene?

Whenever I have tried using a polarizer on my R1, as much as I twiddle with the thing, I can't see any clear difference through the viewfinder or on the LCD that the filter is making.

I was wondering whether this is an issue with live view systems (or me).

So do you peeps just take a shot, review it, and take another shot until you get the effect you want? Or can you actually see the difference the filter is making before you press the shutter?

Thanks in advance.

I don't have a lot of time today so I'm going to make this explanation quick:

The blending method I use is pretty simple. I don't know how to do all that fancy screen capture stuff, so I'll just explain in words as best as I can.

There are two ways I use to get the final image: process the RAW image twice (once for shadows, once for highlights) and then blend, or use adjustment layers. Most of the time I get the exposure pretty spot-on when I shoot, so I use the adjustment layers method most often. Oh - I ALWAYS shoot RAW. I'm not interested in the argument between RAW and JPG... RAW is perfect for my needs, so I use it exclusively.

1. So, I process the image once in RAW, adjusting white balance and maybe tweaking the exposure/shadow/highlights a bit. I then save as 16-bit TIFF.

2. I open the TIFF in CS and first apply a Curves adjustment in it's own layer. Usually the auto adjust works great, or I'll play a little with the curve. If I like the auto adjustment but maybe it's gone a little too far, I'll apply a layer mask and brush out the stuff I don't like.

3. I then add another layer for brightness and contrast. Taking the dark/shadow portion of the image I slide up the brightness so that the details come out. I don't go too far or it'll look fake, and I try to avoid noise as much as I can. If the lighter/highlights portion of the picture come out too bright because of this adjustment, I apply a layer mask and brush out the brightness adjustment in the highlighted area, bringing it down to the original level (or a more suitable level).

4. I like my pictures a bit more contrasty than what would be considered "normal" since I like the color punch, especially when using a polarizer. So, I'll add another layer for contrast and pump up the contrast until I like the effect. I'll then use a layer mask and brush out the burn-out that happens in skies with too much contrast (e.g., cloud details, etc.).

That's about it. I will sometimes add saturation to colors that are muted, but again I try to maintain as much of a natural look as I can. Basically I try to approach the HDR look without getting too "plastic."

If I can find the time I may write a more detailed mini-tutorial on shooting landscapes.

--
Florindo
http://www.bellacosaphotography.com

When you're using a polarizer, you have to make sure that a) there is at least some sunlight, or the effect will be minor, and b) the sun must be closer to a 90-degree angle to the subject. In other words, the sun can't be right behind you or right in front of you or it won't work. The farther to the side the sun is, the more polarizing effect you'll see.

I use full manual mode (aperture and shutter), and I shoot RAW, as a frame of reference here.

When adjusting the polarizer, watch the histogram. You DO shoot with the live histogram turned on, right?! As you turn the dial, the histogram will move to the left (darken) as the polarizer does it's job. Also, look at the little white line on the edge of the ring of the polarizer - point that white line toward the sun, and the polarizer should do it's thing.

Once you've dialed in the right amount of polarization, you should see the exposure meter and histogram to the left of center. Adjust your shutter speed so that the exposure moves back to the right, as far as you want it. I "expose to the right" as much as I can to capture as much data, so that's what I do. Keep in mind that if you're shooting RAW, the camera LCD and exposure meter is giving you readings from the JPG. So you need to know the camera well enough to expose to the right and get the effect you're looking for.

--
Florindo
http://www.bellacosaphotography.com

plevyadophy said:

Just wanna know how people see the difference between the polarized
and non-polarized scene?

Click to expand...

plevyadophy said:

Whenever I have tried using a polarizer on my R1, as much as I
twiddle with the thing, I can't see any clear difference through the
viewfinder or on the LCD that the filter is making.

Click to expand...

My guess is that your difficulty centers around the sun and the angle at which it is to your camera. Also polarizing filters do not work all the time in all situations.

If you find yourself shooting within 30° of the line between you and the sun, either toward or away, a polarizer won't help you much with atmospheric scatter. Skylight coming from those directions acquires very little polarization in the scattering process. In these positions, the filter will act more like a 1-2 Stop ND type.

Polarizers can darken the blue of the sky, highlight clouds, suppress unwanted highlights and improve general color saturation by suppressing atmospheric scatter and color-robbing reflections off water, glass, sunlit foliage, and, vehicles.

I recommend doing some test shooting in which you position yourself at different angles to the sun, and, using subjects/objects having differing reflective characteristics in order to learn what works and what does not.

plevyadophy said:

So do you peeps just take a shot, review it, and take another shot
until you get the effect you want?

Click to expand...

No, not unless you want to shoot 360 pictures.

http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm

Jerry Vacl said:

It works fine.

My two biggest gripes with it are:
a) no outer threads – (would be nice if I could screw the close-up
lens onto it).
b) can't be adjusted with the lens hood on – not really the fault of
the filter, just not very bright Sony design.

I also have to humbly disagree with Mr. BGavin. He states, "The only
reasons I prefer B+ H is because they are coated...", which implies
that the Sony one is not. Mine is, and on both sides too.

Cheers,
Jerry

Click to expand...

Come on Jerry - why do we have to disagree?? Your Sony filters might be coated - I can guarantee that mine aren't. They might be from different batches - its really incidental. If my filters were coated - I wouldn't have bothered with the B+W and the multicoating coating is clearly evident on those B+W filters.

And if you got lucky - (or I got unlucky) it's no guarantee that all Sony filters are like that either. Nothing on Sony's technical site or product description mentions coatings of any sort - but that dosen't necessarily mean they aren't on some polarizers.

The B&H website also claims those 67mm Sony polarizer filters aren't coated, but they also claim the Sony polarizer has front threads and mine don't either so go figure. I've really only tried to offer input based on my own experience, and it was valid for that.

BG

plevyadophy said:

Just wanna know how people see the difference between the polarized
and non-polarized scene?

Whenever I have tried using a polarizer on my R1, as much as I
twiddle with the thing, I can't see any clear difference through the
viewfinder or on the LCD that the filter is making.

I was wondering whether this is an issue with live view systems (or me).

So do you peeps just take a shot, review it, and take another shot
until you get the effect you want? Or can you actually see the
difference the filter is making before you press the shutter?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you're expecting. A polarizer produces it's effect through a pretty specific (and limited) angle to the light source. Some people only use a polarizer to deepen the color of the sky - thats a personal choice.

It will also reduce reflections off water, reflections off leaves (foilage) glass and can actually change the color of the ground by controlling the light being reflected off it. But it won't necessarily do all of that at the same time. You have to decide what your priorities are, pick a target, make sure you are within the effective angle and rotate while looking for the effect. The polarizer doesn't even have to be on the camera - just hold it up and look through it while rotating the filter.

If the ground is the target for example - at the correct angle - you should be able to detect a shift from blue towards yellow in the brown. I would imagine that alternatively you might be able to adjust your white balance for that - on the other hand - for foliage reflections a polarizer can greatly reduce hot spots from sunlight reflections. And it's highly unlikely that the optimum angle for reducing foilage reflections will also be the optimum angle for a polarized blue sky.

BG

adding to the good answers you got, I do see a difference especially in sky or water as I rotate polarizer thru the evf. sometimes it may be hard to see difference but at a minimum you should see sky light thru evf get darker or lighter.
--
Bill

http://www.pbase.com/bill_b

Thanks VERY much to those of you who have replied to my query re how to see the affect of a polarizer.

Very thorough and easy understand replies.

You have all been stars.

Now I will be using one lots more.

Took these shots just for the heck of it last year. I find that the (Sony) polarizer is not very effective (generally) under cloudy conditions. Got quite a surprise when I walked over a bridge and pointed the camera down at a stream. These show the least and most polarizing effects. Same position, same shot, just 90° difference in polarizer adjustment.





Cheers,
Jerry

And that is why I wear polarized fishing glasses.
--
Bill

http://www.pbase.com/bill_b

B Gavin said:

Come on Jerry - why do we have to disagree??

Click to expand...

We don't. I still think your wife is a knockout, even without those "Softar" dimples.

Your Sony filters might

B Gavin said:

be coated - I can guarantee that mine aren't. They might be from
different batches - its really incidental. If my filters were coated

• I wouldn't have bothered with the B+W and the multicoating coating

is clearly evident on those B+W filters.

And if you got lucky - (or I got unlucky) it's no guarantee that all
Sony filters are like that either. Nothing on Sony's technical site
or product description mentions coatings of any sort - but that
dosen't necessarily mean they aren't on some polarizers.

The B&H website also claims those 67mm Sony polarizer filters aren't
coated, but they also claim the Sony polarizer has front threads and
mine don't either so go figure. I've really only tried to offer input
based on my own experience, and it was valid for that.

BG

Click to expand...

Well, I can't say anything about your filters, I can only comment on mine and on your comments about the equipment.

First of all, I'll be the first to admit that Sony, in spite of being (probably) the largest consumer electronics manufacturer and in spite of also producing cameras, is not a camera manufacturer in the same sense as the old Zeiss and Leitz were. That polarizer, in particular irks me, that you have to take the lens hood off to adjust it, I mean how much more ridiculous can you get?

On the other hand, I refuse to believe that the accessories were produced haphazardly in some guy's garage, in the sense that some may or may not be coated, etc. My belief is that Sony is way too big for that kind of nonsense. I only have two filters, the polarizer and the UV (protector) for the R1. Both of these filters (obtained from Sony on separate occasions, by the way) are coated. They may even be multi-coated. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a sorely lacking amount of information available from Sony about their optical products, pointing out another difference between Sony (as an electronics manufacturer) and say, Zeiss and Leitz (as camera manufacturers).

Bg, try this with your Sony filters. Take the filter and sit it on a black (preferably easily movable) surface. Hold it up to a light source so you can see the reflection of that light source on the surface of the filter. When I do that and get the angle of reflection close to 180° I see the reflection having a distinct salmon coloured tint to it. As I lower the filter to make that angle narrower and narrower, I find that the colour of the reflected light source changes to a rich jade green. I get this with both filters (identical tints) and from both sides of each filter. In spite of my feelings about some of Sony's inept camera design features, I refuse to believe that Sony is out to stiff you by not coating it's filters. Another reason I believe this, is, that long before I got into this digital game, I remember reading that coatings were far more important on optical surfaces when it came to sensors as opposed to film. Especially for the R1, I think Sony put out considerable effort to achieve quality. You can only get that with coated filters.

Another thing I found strange was, for some unknown reason, of all people who ever asked for information on the R1's converters on STF, you were the only one who insisted (before owning them) that they did not have coated optical surfaces.

My (Sony) polarizer and (Sony) close-up lens do not have front threads, my (Sony) UV (protector) does have front threads.

Cheers,
Jerry

Jerry Vacl said:

Took these shots just for the heck of it last year. I find that the
(Sony) polarizer is not very effective (generally) under cloudy
conditions. Got quite a surprise when I walked over a bridge and
pointed the camera down at a stream. These show the least and most
polarizing effects. Same position, same shot, just 90° difference in
polarizer adjustment.

Click to expand...

[picture snipped]

[picture snipped]

Jerry Vacl said:

Cheers,
Jerry

Click to expand...

D@mn!!!

I have never seen anything that dramatic before in relaton to polarizer filters! WOW!

Yep, definately a picture is worth a thousand words.

After reading the great answers to my earlier question, that picture has essentially sealed/cemented my understanding of polarizers. Whenever someone asks me about them from now on, I will direct them to this thread.

Great.

Thanks for the pic

Hi Jerry - I'm pretty late in getting back to you on this but have been pretty busy lately.

Let me start by saying that I have a lot of respect for your personal expertice.

There are a lot of term that get thrown around - coated, uncoated, fully coated, multicoated and in the end there are so many means, methods and restrictions that IMO it would take a specialist in the field to really evaluate what is and isn't available.

Personally I feel that I am not much different than many consumers - I've been pretty much at the mercy of whatever claims and info is made available to the general public by camera manufacturers. I have written several manufacturers for details in some cases (for example B+W multicoating has only recently become available on Käsemann filters) but again the info is only as reliable as the expertice of the representative.

I'll give your testing suggestions a runthrough when I have a minute, but would ask that you fill me in on exactly how to interprate those results and why. This is pretty much off-topic relative to the initial question posted, but kind of info can be both interesting and useful and I'm always open to learning something new.

I'll see if I can talk Fanny into some shots without those Softars - and I'm glad you like her pictures. To me they show that she's happy and that means I'm taking relatively good care of her.

Catch you later,

BG